
“Merit” gets a lot of use in current cultural memes. It is equivalent to what moral or great good used to be. Something that everyone should appreciate, strive for, and reward or applaud.
The problem is that merit _ like all those other values_ is really relative. Is there merit, for example, in not stealing a loaf of bread? Does it make a difference if you or your family is starving? We’ve changed the word implications, but the core issues still remain.
“Ah,” apologists chime in, “but merit is a positive thing _ it simply means someone does something better than others. Not that someone tries but that they succeed. And that success is an objective fact we can all see, not some namby pamby feeling.”
I understand the argument. I find it lacking. Merit, like good, has too many preconditions, most of which we can never know. Merit, like any other value, should be judged partially by its difficulty.
“No! No!” cry the apologists. “Success is an objective thing!” Yet none of the billionaires claim to want a complete “competentocracy.” There is no glamor in being competent. Deep in their hearts, most highly successful people are well aware that just as in ancient days much of our lives are determined not by our actions, but by circumstance and fate.